If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Tomorrow marks the beginning of a major Congressional hearing on the terror attack In Libya and in a desperately transparent attempt to get ahead of damaging news, at the very last minute tonight, the State Department finally came clean:

In other words, absolutely everything we were told by our government -- by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice. White House Spokesman Jay Carney, and any number of staffers and surrogates -- was 100% false.

There were no protests, no benign crowds exploited by local militias, and nothing had anything to do with a video. Our Ambassador, another diplomat, and two Navy SEALs were murdered in a brutally efficient and coordinated terrorist attack.

Period.

End of story.

In other words, just days after the president declared al-Qaeda all but obliterated at his convention in Charlotte, and because no one took direct threats and pleas for added security seriously, on the anniversary of September 11, four Americans were assassinated in Libya by al-Qaeda associates. And for days and days and days afterward, the Obama Administration covered this fact up with lies of omission, half-truths, double talk, and outright lies. >>>

If the corrupt media were to give this unraveling scandal a tenth of the attention it deserves, Obama's reelection chances would be non-existent. Libya isn't just a scandal about criminally lax security, it's also a cover up committed by a White House betting on the media to be a co-conspirator.

And thus far, with rare exception, that's been a pretty safe bet. >>>

You know, had Obama been half as concerned with the security of overseas assets in the form of personnel and intelligence as he is with securing more welfare for Big Bird, the world would look a whole lot different today.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is setting his sights on his biggest political target yet: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is treading more carefully than he did with his investigation of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious gun-tracking program, which led to a House vote placing Holder in contempt.

Issa has not called on Clinton to testify at a hearing Wednesday morning meant to investigate security lapses at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Issa’s staff has also praised Clinton for vowing to cooperate with the investigation of how an attack on the consulate left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomats dead.

“After dealing with the Department of Justice’s stonewalling in Operation Fast and Furious, the State Department and Secretary Clinton have been a breath of fresh air,” said Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Issa, in an interview with The Hill. “They pledged their cooperation when we made our first two witness requests.”

But there are signs that a prolonged investigation by the pugnacious Issa and his panel, which enjoys subpoena power over the administration, will bring the two Washington heavyweights into conflict.

While Issa has not directly criticized Clinton, one of his lieutenants — Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) — did on Tuesday, arguing the White House and Clinton had been more concerned with normalizing relations with Libya’s new government than with security.

“It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State Department, from Secretary Clinton to President Obama’s White House,” Chaffetz said on the Fox News Channel morning show. >>>

The real target for all of Issa’s investigations is Obama, whom Clinton is under pressure to protect even as she looks to cement her own reputation as a successful secretary of State.

And Issa, in going after State, is setting himself up for a battle with one of the country’s most popular and influential political figures.

Clinton is also a Washington player with a cadre of loyal lieutenants dedicated to protecting her image — not to mention her husband, President Bill Clinton.

Clinton and Issa have tangled in the past. >>>

Problems for Clinton could arise down the road as the committee looks into whether it was misled by the administration — a central theme to Issa’s investigation of Holder.

After the Benghazi attack, the administration initially held that it wasn’t premeditated, but rather caused by a protest that got out of control. Officials now acknowledge the attack was terrorism. >>>

For the time being, Issa’s office holds that Clinton’s response has been noticeably different from the DOJ’s and says it is optimistic about the course of the probe.

“In great contrast, the State Department, to this point, does not seem to have drawn any hard lines in terms of either casting blame or defending what happened,” said Hill. “They have indicated publicly that they share the committee’s desire to learn what happened here.”

A State Department official on Tuesday offered a closed-door briefing requested by the chairmen of eight panels with jurisdiction over foreign affairs, which Issa sat in on, after being given permission by Clinton to do so.

Lets hope there is a real investigation here and the media asks tough questions "what did you know/when did you know it" stuff. Which they won't. So lets hope Romney asks tough questions in the debate. Just as a side point, I really wish the right would drop the whole NPR/big bird thing. It really muddies the argument.

If he doesn't it would be one of the greatest political missteps by a candidate ever.

The more I think about it, the more I think he won't directly bring it up, but he will indirectly. Probably referencing how he'll have better control of his diplomants, ensure that they don't go shooting their mouths off (Susan Rice) before all of the facts are gathered. A more subtler approach that would help to mitigate bad feedback from seemingly being negative.

In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.

The more I think about it, the more I think he won't directly bring it up, but he will indirectly. Probably referencing how he'll have better control of his diplomants, ensure that they don't go shooting their mouths off (Susan Rice) before all of the facts are gathered. A more subtler approach that would help to mitigate bad feedback from seemingly being negative.

If I were Romney, I'd just be like "the media keeps asking for specifics how my foreign policy will be different than Obama's. Well, for one... when an ambassador to a war-torn country says he needs more security, he'll get it. Also if we do screw up, I'm not going to try and whitewash/cover-up the deaths of American servicemen and American diplomats. So that's two differences."